Appeal No. 97-0394
Application 08/353,083
into said finger hole and adapted to position a finger to grip
said bowling ball with the pad portion of said finger pressed
against said interior wall of the finger hole . . . [and] with
the fingernail of the finger in contacting relationship with the
fingertip positioner.” Independent claim 5 recites an insert for
providing a fingertip positioner in a bowling ball “wherein said
insert is positioned in a finger hole of a bowling ball . . .
such that . . . said fingernail is in contacting relationship
with the insert to position the finger for pressing against a
portion of the interior wall of the finger hole.” Independent
claim 8 recites a fingertip positioner for use in a finger hole
of a bowling ball comprising “a protrusion positioned in the
interior wall toward the bottom wall in said finger hole, said
protrusion adapted to bear against a fingernail of a finger and
thereby press an opposite pad portion of the finger against an
opposite portion of the interior wall of the finger hole.”
Although the foregoing limitations contain functional
language, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with defining
something in a claim by what it does rather than by what it is
(In re Hallman, 655 F.2d 212, 215, 210 USPQ 609, 611 (CCPA 1981);
In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213, 169 USPQ 226, 229 (CCPA
1971)). Taken as a whole, these limitations set forth positive
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007